UKG100009854
UKG100009854
To: “} Watts, Ala Massey,
KirstenI
Ce: Watson, Richard - UKGIf”
Henderson, Tom
Sent: 2019-05-28T07:48:45Z
Importance: Normal
Subject: RE: Post Office Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Received: 2019-05-28T07:48:41Z
Tom Cooper
Director
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
From: Rodric Williams [mailto
Sent: 21 May 2019 12:37
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <!
Watts, Alan <!
Cc: Ben Foat
Henderson,
Subject: RE: Post Office Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
;; Watson, Richard - UKGI <_
Thanks Tom.
I see we have a call scheduled for 4pm to discuss the facts raised by the Lead Claimants in the
Common Issues trial. I therefore attach a table of facts for Abdullah which we can work through to
see if this provides the information you are seeking.
On the other points raised in your email:
e Inthe appeal, we are currently challenging the issues of fact in the first list of the attached
“one-pager” because even if they are true for an individual claimant (they may not be), that
does not make it true for every postmaster who has run a Post Office branch.
© The key point here is that we do not want to accept adverse factual findings which bind the
entire Claimant Group when they have not been fully investigated and interrogated.
e The process of fully investigating and interrogating the factual position should take place
through the trial/s to determine whether we breached the postmasters’ contracts, when a fully
informed view can be taken on the facts.
© The Judge was therefore wrong to delve prematurely into the factual position in the way he
did in the Common Issues judgment, which is the overarching “procedural unfairness” ground
of the appeal.
UKGI00009854
UKG100009854
© On the issues of fact in the second list of “one-pager”, we are challenging Bates’s contract
formation because it relates to an admissible pre-contractual matter, namely what documents
Bates had when he entered into his contract with Post Office.
© This contrasts to other issues raised in the judgment, such as the content of Mr Abdullah’s
branch accounts, where it is not always clear whether the Judge is making a finding, but which
are often post-contractual and out of scope in the Common Issues trial.
e The other matters raised in the second list relate to the performance of Post Office witnesses
and trial conduct, which are relevant for later trials where those and other Post Office
witnesses may give evidence, and/or go to how much Post Office may have to pay to the
Claimants for their legal costs of the Common Issues trial.
Overall, the full content of the appeal, including the scope of the factual challenges, will be reviewed
after the hearing on 23 May 2019 when we ask the Judge for permission to appeal.
I hope that is helpful but please let us know if not. Alan, Kirsten, Tom H — please supplement or
comment on the above as necessary.
Kind regards, Rod
From: Cooper, Tom - UKGI [mailto#
Sent: 17 May 2019 07:41
To: Rodric Williams <
; Watts, Alan ¢~ GRO “} Massey,
Kirsten <
Cc: Ben Foat ; Watson, Richard - UKG!
Subject: RE: UBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILE!
Thanks Rod
If there are items in your first list (1-13) that are generally true, why would we appeal them?
On B, it bothers me that the only fact in the lead cases we can point to where we seem to have
concrete evidence that Fraser got it wrong is whether Bates saw the contract. Are there no others?
Take as an example Abdulla where Fraser says there were some errors in the make-up of the
outstanding balance at the time he was audited and terminated. If it turns out that (for example) he
didn’t owe the post office any money at the time he was terminated then he should not have been
terminated or prosecuted. The consequences of that are far greater than any issues in the Bates case
it seems to me.
So if you’re saying we don’t need to challenge these findings at this stage, I’d like to understand why
we're picking out the Bates contract point as being so special.
In general, I still want to go through the lead cases on a call and I assume the table that Ben outlined
in his earlier email is still being prepared so we can go through them?
UKGI00009854
UKGI00009854
Tom
From: Rodric Williams [m
Sent: 16 May 2019 17:08
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <7 >
Cc: Ben Foat Watson, Richard - UKGI
Subject: Post Office Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Tom,
Further to your telephone conversation with Ben yesterday, please find attached a “one pager” listing
the issues of fact being appealed from the Common Issues judgment because an individual claimant’s
experience has been extrapolated to a finding applicable to the entire postmaster community, and
those being appeal because we disagree with them (i.e. because they were not open to the Judge on
the evidence and/or are perverse).
Please let us know if you need anything further in this regard.
Separately, we have raised with the external legal team the issue of the costs of the recusal
application given its stark dismissal by the Court of Appeal. We will let you know how this progresses.
Kind regards, Rod
Rodric Williams
Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand
20 Finsbury Street
London EC2Y 94Q
FEES IE OSES IEE IOCCI SI CEIOCIEISICIEIOCG OE SICECI ICCC IAAI IE
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not
the named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those
of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
FESS ISIE GEES SEES GHE SSCS CEG CE SEES CEES ESI AGI RAI
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be
found on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
UKG100009854
UKGI00009854
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s)
to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email
in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. This footnote also confirms that our
email communications may be monitored to ensure the secure and effective operation of our
systems and for other lawful purposes, and that this email has been swept for malware and
viruses.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com